Two "psychological" columns and something else about comparing incompatible viewpoints

About comparing worldviews

The other day I was riding the subway, standing by the door, reading a magazine. An old acquaintance of mine entered the car. Twenty-five years ago, I was a schoolboy, and he was the head of a club at the district pioneer house. The fact that I am now, as it were, the head of one of the regional scientific societies, is partly thanks to this man. We greeted each other coolly – our last meetings were not sincere.

Upon learning that I work at the university and am proud of my three children, he accused me of a sinful life. My acquaintance confidently asserted what God wanted from me and described how He would punish me and my children for disobeying His will. Addressing the interlocutor by his patronymic, I asked why he was saying this. My old acquaintance said that the person with his former name no longer existed and introduced himself by his "true" Old Hebrew name (but for some reason, also with a patronymic). His words are the will of God.

The eternal punishment for me and my children will emphasize the grace with which He will clothe His faithful servants. I will be blamed for hearing a warning from a righteous man (from him!) but not heeding it. My disagreement is a trick of sin.

We parted without saying goodbye. A quarter of a century ago, he was a kind and intelligent person, and today, no matter how much we talked, we would not change our positions. My arguments would only confirm his conviction that atheists are sinful and deceitful. His sophistry would convince me of the harm of fanaticism. We are on opposite sides of the watershed, as in an old joke.

"Our rabbi is a saint. God speaks with him every day." "And how is this known?" "The rabbi says!" "But he's lying!" "How can a person whom God speaks with lie?!"

You are either in one worldview or another. Is there a fundamental difference between them? I think so. In one of the articles in "KT," I proposed comparing worldviews by the number of degrees of freedom. I will expand on this idea.

We are self-tuning systems. Depending on the bandwidth of the filters through which we perceive reality, we are more or less capable of change. Simply put, our behavior is regulated by a feedback loop: model of reality – behavior – reaction to reality's response – correction of the initial model. If the initial model is absolutely rigid, its filters only pass signals confirming it. The owner of such a worldview is stuck: they have stepped onto tracks from which it is impossible to deviate. Therefore, worldviews can be compared by their ability to change. This is reminiscent of Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability of scientific knowledge... The most favorable symptom is the ability for self-irony and a detached view of one's own position. Some worldviews evolve, others turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. Logical paradox: imagine an ideological atheist who, throughout an infinite afterlife, never tires of rejoicing in his correctness that there is no afterlife and cannot be.

Indeed, excessive breadth of views is not so good. If anything can be crammed into a worldview, it means it cannot be corrected by input signals and proves incapable of adaptive evolution. And this is a serious drawback: in the world we live in, only that which forms adaptations survives. How then do primitive models, like the views of my acquaintance, survive? There is another parameter that determines success.

In biological evolution, the success/failure of an organism is determined by the number of its offspring. In cultural evolution, the success/failure of a culturally transmitted trait is determined by the narrowing or widening of its distribution. In both cases, success consists of the ability to survive and the ability to reproduce.

So, shall we build a phase plane of worldviews? On the abscissa axis – the number of degrees of freedom associated with the stability of views, on the ordinate axis – the ability to invade (allow me to use a parasitological term). My acquaintance drew a long curve with a sharp turn on this plane, falling into a potential well – an attractor. I console myself with the hope that I have not yet slid off the evolutionary ridge. Let's compare our worldviews. His are both more stable (he has no doubts about anything) and more invasive (he has already managed to convert a few sinners!). Why then am I not running to him for science? I think differently than he does.

How good it is, by the way, that people are different! If humanity were truly diverse, any sticky-invasive heresy would sweep through the entire society, blocking the development of most directions. I think the evolutionary optimum is a thin path of unstable equilibrium, running along the ridge between two abysses. A step to the side will cause an amplifying deviation from the original route. Fall into the abyss – you will come to rigid and cruel views.

Therefore, as a basis for comparing worldviews, I propose an analysis of their location in a certain phase space. In this case, the behavior of 'particles' (carriers of certain views) in the immediate vicinity of each point is of fundamental importance: will they slide into it like a trap, or will they gradually evolve to another state. You have probably guessed which option I consider healthy and which – pathological...

How many degrees of freedom are there in freedom of conscience?

After their victory in Kansas, American 'scientific creationists' are trying to consolidate their success. Thus, thanks to a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, the Quality Science Education for All foundation gained prominence, which declares that its mission is 'to ensure and defend the right of all American students to receive a quality science education.' A worthy goal! The founders of the foundation argue that students should be taught 'how to think,' not 'what to think.' By stating these goals, proponents of scientific education are reaching rather unexpected conclusions.

They propose including criticism of evolutionary theory by proponents of 'intelligent design' (another name for 'scientific creationists') in education. As 'KT' has already written, the difference between proponents of 'intelligent design' and evolutionists is that the former already know the ultimate truth – the one given in Scripture¹. However, the head and founder of the foundation, Larry Caldwell, emphasizes that he is simply a Christian, not a proponent of 'intelligent design' (sarcastic network commentators have suggested in this regard that Caldwell allows for unintelligent design). The foundation has managed to win some lawsuits – for example, forcing one evolutionist to admit that he did not accurately present Caldwell's views. More ambitious tasks are on the agenda. The University of California, Berkeley, posted materials on its website to aid in the study of evolutionary theory. In Larry Caldwell's view, the university violated the law by stating that evolutionary teaching is compatible with faith. Many religious figures (up to the Pope) have expressed dismay at Caldwell's assertion, but the lawsuit is not against the Vatican, but against the university. The fact is that the university receives state funding, and Caldwell interpreted the quoted statement as interference in matters of faith and an infringement on freedom of conscience.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory itself that requires its proponents to abandon faith in God (just as there is no confirmation of biblical narratives), because science and faith lie in different planes. Whether various 'religious teachers' allow trusting science is a question for them, not for the university.

There is, however, a criterion that allows us to compare worldviews without resorting to evaluating their truthfulness. Different models of the world differ in the breadth of views with which they can be combined. If you like, call it the difference in the number of degrees of freedom. According to one of the broadest views, Bohr's principle of complementarity, reality is so complex that it cannot be exhaustively described in a single language. Therefore, from this point of view, liberalism is broader than Trotskyism, Jungianism than Freudianism, and cosmopolitanism than nationalism. The views of the Catholic Church have more degrees of freedom than the creed of Jehovah's Witnesses, but fewer than the Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.

Some people need broad views (and free frameworks), others need the narrowest and most specific ones. Life in a world that cannot be understood 'to the bottom' is not easy. One way to overcome ontological fear is to adopt narrow views that provide an exhaustive description of reality and offer simple recipes for behavior.

Let's return to our topic. Despite all the complexity of comparing scientific evolutionism and 'scientific creationism,' it can be seen that these currents differ not only in methodology. The former is significantly broader than the latter. Do you remember how Caesar psychologically outplayed Pompey? He contrasted Pompey's slogan 'who is not with me is against me' with 'who is not against me is with me.' The author of this note, if he had to choose, would most likely have ended up in Caesar's camp. And you?

¹ Is it worth teaching students to tailor their reasoning to a given result? The experience of considering a subject from different points of view can be gained while remaining within the scientific field. See, for example, reviews at www.macroevolution.narod.ru. Return to text

Although...

The era of expectations – that computers would soon acquire individuality and become not just intellectual assistants but emotional partners for humans – has passed. Now, simpler methods are used to give computers unique traits: individual design; the ability to recognize the user's psychophysiological state; equipping with a physical 'face' with situationally dependent facial expressions or displaying such a face on the screen; a module that provides stochastic noise... Of course, none of these methods will make the machine anthropomorphic. And to offer another idea, I will have to talk about a recent psychological study.

{ "translation": "On Comparing Worldviews\n\nI was riding the subway the other day, standing by the doors, reading a magazine. An old acquaintance of mine entered the carriage. Twenty-five years ago I was a schoolboy, and he ran a club at the local House of Pioneers. That I am now, as it were, chairman of one of the regional scientific societies is due in part to this person. We exchanged dry greetings—our recent meetings had not been cordial.\n\nLearning that I work at a university and boast of my three children, he accused me of a sinful life. My acquaintance confidently declared that he wanted God’s will for me and described how He would punish me and my children for disobedience to His will. Addressing me by name and patronymic, I asked why he said such things. My old acquaintance said that the man with his former name no longer existed and introduced himself by a “true,” ancient Hebrew name (though for some reason also with a patronymic). His words are God’s will.\n\nEternal punishment for me and my children, he emphasized, would highlight the grace with which He would clothe His faithful servants. I would be reproached for having heard the warning from a righteous man (from him!) but not heeded it. My disagreement is the cunning of sin.\n\nWe parted without saying goodbye. A quarter-century ago he was a kind and reasonable man, yet today, no matter how much we might talk, we would not change our positions. My arguments would only reinforce his conviction that atheists are sinful and deceitful. His tirades would persuade me only of the harm of fanaticism. We stand on opposite sides of the watershed, as in an old joke:\n\n“Our rabbi is a saint. God speaks to him every day.” “How is that known?” “The rabbi says so!” “But he lies!” “How can a man lie if God speaks to him?!”\n\nYou are either in one worldview or the other. Is there a fundamental difference between them? I think yes. In one of my notes in “CT” I proposed comparing worldviews by the number of degrees of freedom. Let me develop this thought.\n\nWe are self-adjusting systems. Depending on the bandwidth of the filters through which we perceive reality, we are to a greater or lesser extent capable of change. Simplifying, one can say that our behavior is regulated by a feedback loop: model of reality → behavior → reaction of reality → adjustment of the initial model. If the initial model is absolutely rigid, its filters pass only confirming signals. The possessor of such a worldview is cooked: he has taken a seat on rails from which it is impossible to alight. Thus, worldviews can be compared by their capacity for change. This resembles Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability of scientific knowledge… A favorable symptom is the possibility of self-irony and a detached view of one’s own position. Some worldviews evolve; others turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. Logical paradox: imagine an ideological atheist who, throughout infinite posthumous existence, never tires of rejoicing in his correctness, that there is no afterlife and there cannot be one…\n\nBy the way, excessive breadth of outlook is not so good either. If a worldview can accommodate anything at all, it means that it cannot adjust to incoming signals and proves incapable of adaptive evolution. That is a serious drawback: in the world we live in, only what generates adaptations survives. How then do primitive schemes, like the views of my acquaintance, survive? There is another parameter that determines success.\n\nIn biological evolution, the success/failure of an organism is determined by the number of its offspring. In cultural evolution, the success/failure of a culturally transmitted trait is determined by the narrowing or expansion of its distribution. In both cases, success consists of the ability to survive and the ability to reproduce.\n\nWell then, shall we construct a phase plane of worldviews? On the abscissa axis—the number of degrees of freedom associated with the stability of views; on the ordinate axis—the capacity for invasion (allow me to use a parasitological term). My acquaintance drew a long curve with a sharp turn on this plane, falling into a potential pit—an attractor. I console myself with the hope that I have not yet fallen off the evolutionary ridge. Let us compare our worldviews. His are both more stable (he doubts nothing) and more invasive (he has already managed to convert several sinners!). So why do I not run to him for enlightenment? I think differently than he does.\n\nHow fortunate, by the way, that people are different! If humanity were truly homogeneous, any sticky-invasive heresy would sweep through the entire social organism, blocking development in most directions. I think the evolutionary optimum is a thin path of unstable equilibrium running along a ridge between two abysses. A step to the side will trigger an increasing deviation from the original route. One who slides into the abyss will arrive at rigid and cruel views.\n\nThus, as a basis for comparing worldviews I propose analyzing their location in some phase space. At the same time, it is crucially important to consider the behavior of “particles” (bearers of particular views) in the immediate vicinity of each point: do they slide into it like into a trap, or do they gradually evolve toward another state? You have probably guessed which option I consider healthy and which pathological…\n\nHow many degrees of freedom does freedom of conscience have?\n\nAfter the victory in Kansas, American “scientific creationists” are trying to consolidate their success. Thus, thanks to a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, the Quality Science Education for All fund gained prominence, declaring that its mission is “to ensure and defend the right of all American students to receive a quality science education.” A worthy goal! The founders of the fund assert that students need to be taught “how to think,” not “what to think.” Naming goals with which any normal person would agree, the advocates of scientific education proceed to rather unexpected conclusions.\n\nThey propose including in education a critique of evolutionary theory by advocates of “intelligent design” (another name for “scientific creationists”). As “CT” already wrote, the difference between advocates of “intelligent design” and evolutionists is that the former know the final truth in advance—the one given in Scripture¹. However, the head and founder of the fund, Larry Caldwell, emphasizes that he is simply a Christian, not an adherent of “intelligent design” (wry network commentators suggested in this connection that Caldwell allows for unintelligent creation). The fund has managed to win some court cases—for example, forcing one evolutionist to admit that he inaccurately presented Caldwell’s views. More large-scale tasks are on the agenda. The University of California, Berkeley, posted materials on its site to help in studying evolutionary theory. From Larry Caldwell’s point of view, the university violated the law by stating that evolutionary theory is compatible with faith. The idea that offended Caldwell was expressed by many religious figures (up to the Pope), but the lawsuit was filed not against the Vatican, but against the university. The point is that the university receives public funding, and Caldwell interpreted the quoted statement as interference in matters of faith and an encroachment on freedom of conscience.\n\nIn evolutionary theory itself there is nothing that would require people who accept it to renounce faith in God (just as there are no confirmations of biblical stories), since science and faith lie in different planes. Whether various “teachers of faith” allow trusting science is a question for them, not for the university.\n\nThere is, however, a criterion that allows comparing worldviews without resorting to assessing their truth. Different models of the world differ in the breadth of views with which they can be combined. If you like, call this difference the number of degrees of freedom. According to one of the broadest views, Bohr’s principle of complementarity, reality is so complex that it cannot be exhaustively described in one language. From this point of view, liberalism is broader than Trotskyism, Jungianism is broader than Freudianism, and cosmopolitanism is broader than nationalism. The views of the Catholic Church have more degrees of freedom than the creed of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but fewer than the Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.\n\nSome people need broad views (and free frameworks), others—maximally narrow and concrete ones. Life in a world that cannot be understood “to the bottom” is not an easy thing. One way to overcome ontological fear is to adopt certain narrow views that give an exhaustive description of reality and offer simple recipes for behavior.\n\nLet us return to our topic. Despite all the complexity of comparing scientific evolutionism and “scientific creationism,” it can be seen that these trends differ not only in methodology. The first is much broader than the second. Do you remember how Caesar psychologically outplayed Pompey? To Pompey’s slogan “Whoever is not with me is my enemy,” Caesar opposed “Whoever is not against me is my friend.” The author of this note, if he had to choose, would most likely end up in Caesar’s camp. And you?\n\n1 Is it worth teaching students to tailor their reasoning to a predetermined result? The experience of considering a subject from different points of view can be gained while remaining within the scientific field. See, for example, reviews at www.macroevolution.narod.ru Back to text\n\nSmall, but…\n\nThe era of expectations—that computers would soon acquire individuality and become not just intellectual assistants but emotional partners of man—has passed. Now, to give computers unique traits, simpler methods are used: individual design; the ability to recognize the user’s psychophysiological state; equipping with a physical “face” with situationally dependent mimicry or displaying such a face on the screen; a block providing stochastic noise… Of course, none of these methods will make the machine human-like. And to offer another idea, I will have to tell about a recent psychological study.\n\nCommissioned by the BBC, the University of Central Lancashire checked whether short people have increased aggressiveness. Ten men below 150 cm and ten men of average height fenced with sticks across a table. A planted player provoked the subject. In the end, short men demonstrated a lower level of aggressiveness. Based on this, the conclusion was drawn that the “Napoleon complex” invented by Alfred Adler does not exist.\n\nLet us turn to Adler: the notion of “complex” implies both painful awareness of one’s own inadequacy and striving to overcome it. But why did the experimenters decide that the complexes of short males would be overcome thanks to aggressiveness in fencing? It is unclear…\n\nOur psyche is not a machine program that fundamentally differs from “hardware.” Our programs grow from their substrate (neural networks) and restructure them during functioning. The task of the psyche is adaptation. If in power confrontations a short man will lose, he will learn to avoid such defeats and win otherwise. Napoleon did not become a fistfighter: he became a military commander. A quarrelsome lout is not risked to be “broken.” Aggressiveness of short people is not direct: it can manifest in an unpredictable blow from an unexpected direction.\n\n…A scene in a military department of a large Soviet-era university. A training platoon of the accelerated generation: all over 180 cm. After the academic leave, a student who was older, not tall, and by himself, and against the background of the rest—simply short—restored the formation. The major accepting the formation looked at the smooth line of heads, abruptly ending on the last man in the row, and answered the unspoken comment aloud: “Well, nothing. Small but mighty.” From the middle of the formation came the reply: “Small but smelly!”\n\nDo you think the last remark does not reflect a widespread view? Do you think it does not affect short people in any way? People suffering from the “Napoleon complex” do not answer blow for blow. Yet they are capable of attacking their real and imaginary offenders from ambush. This contributes more to rising up the social ladder than direct aggression.\n\nShould what I wrote offend my friend, whose height is significantly below average? He is kind and reliable. He will not take offense; he is ready to joke about his height and his readiness to help everyone he meets. Does he refute that short people are characterized by the “Napoleon complex”? No. Overcoming shortcomings is the result of their impact!\n\nDo you remember that Demosthenes had problems with diction, from which he got rid by pronouncing speeches with pebbles in his mouth? Do you know that Sofia Kovalevskaya achieved success in an activity to which women were considered unsuited? Do you know that Schwarzenegger was a frail and sickly youth? Have you thought that for mortal beings who do not know their future, it is characteristic to strive to overcome their own limitations and gain immortality in culture?\n\nThe human psyche grew out of the animal in the course of evolution. Where to draw the line between pre-human and human? By the ability to work, following Engels? But do bees and ants work? Teilhard de Chardin considered the boundary of humanization to be the ability for reflection—self-awareness. A natural consequence of self-awareness is comparing oneself with others. The first reaction to this comparison is painful experience of one’s own shortcomings. The second—for more mature people—is overcoming these shortcomings and their hypercompensation. Both Napoleon and the friend mentioned here hypercompensated for their shortcoming, only in different ways.\n\nAnd is the poll of devices performed by the BIOS or operating system during boot an analogue of reflection? No. It does not lead to unpredictable reactions to shortcomings and advantages recognized by the software environment. But what about inserting a block into the OS that, when the machine boots, will evaluate its configuration, compare it with something, rejoice at something, and grieve at something? If such a block asks the user for an upgrade, it will please hardware manufacturers. It will also be able to ensure a crash when accessing weak functions… And how to provide hypercompensation? Involve the Internet? With a network lottery of missing hardware (in which, as always, the organizers will remain in the win)? Well, the craving for gambling is also one of the human traits, not yet inherent in computers. What other ideas are there?\n\nHuman irrationality manifests in the fact that his shortcomings (both real and imaginary) determine his essence more strongly than his merits. Computers are disgustingly rational. Should we fix this?\n\nD. Shabanov. On Comparing Worldviews // Computerra, Moscow, 2007. – No. 21 (689). — P. 30\nD. Shabanov. How Many Degrees of Freedom Does Freedom of Conscience Have? // Computerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 45 (617)\nD. Shabanov. Small, but… // Computerra, Moscow, 2007. – No. 19 (687)" }

Let's return to Adler: the concept of 'complex' means both a painful awareness of one's own inferiority and the striving to overcome it. But why did the experimenters decide that the complexes of short males would be overcome through aggressiveness during fencing? It's unclear...

Our psyche is not a machine program, which is fundamentally different from 'hardware.' Our programs grow from their foundation (neural networks) and rebuild them in the process of functioning. The task of the psyche is adaptation. If a short man loses in physical confrontations, he will learn to avoid such losses and win in other ways. Napoleon did not become a fistfighter: he became a military leader. A wimp who doesn't dare to 'stand up to him' resorts to fists. The aggressiveness of short people is not direct: it can manifest in an unpredictable blow from an unexpected direction.

Do you think the last remark does not reflect the generally accepted view? Do you think it does not affect short people in any way? People suffering from 'Napoleon complex' do not respond blow for blow. However, they are capable of attacking their real and imagined offenders insidiously. This contributes more to climbing the social ladder than direct aggression.

Should what I have written offend my friend, whose height is significantly below average? He is kind and reliable. He will not be offended; he is ready to joke about his height and his readiness to help everyone he meets. Does he refute the fact that short people have a 'Napoleon complex'? No. Overcoming shortcomings is the result of their influence!

Do you remember that Demosthenes had speech problems, which he overcame by reciting speeches with pebbles in his mouth? Do you know that Sofia Kovalevskaya achieved success in activities for which women were considered unsuitable? Do you know that Schwarzenegger was a frail and sickly young man? Have you considered that for people, mortal beings who do not know their future, there is a striving to overcome their own limitations and achieve immortality in culture?

The human psyche evolved from the animal psyche. Where to draw the line between non-human and human? By the ability to work, following Engels? But do bees and ants work? Teilhard de Chardin considered the ability to reflect – self-awareness – to be the boundary. A natural consequence of self-awareness is comparing oneself to others. The first reaction to this comparison is the painful experience of one's own shortcomings. The second – for more mature people – is overcoming these shortcomings and their hypercompensation. Both Napoleon and my friend mentioned here hypercompensated for their shortcomings, only in different ways.

And is the device that the BIOS or operating system performs during boot-up an analogue of reflection? No. It does not lead to unpredictable reactions to shortcomings and merits recognized by the software environment. And shouldn't we install a module in the OS that, during machine boot-up, would evaluate its configuration, compare it with something, be happy about something, and be sad about something else? If such a module asked the user for an upgrade, it would please the hardware manufacturers. It could also cause a failure when accessing weak functions... And how to ensure hypercompensation? Use the Internet? With a network lottery of hardware deficiencies (in which, as always, the organizers win)? Well, the craving for gambling is also one of the human characteristics, not yet inherent in computers. What other ideas are there?

Human irrationality manifests in the fact that its shortcomings (both real and imagined) define its essence more strongly than its merits. Computers are abysmally rational. Shall we fix it?